The problem with OS X sales is that it doesn't take into account people who buy Macs and put Windows on them and never use OS X.

I think this represents a vanishingly small number if users, less than 2%. Mainly because this is really stupid. Apple desktops are complete garbage to begin with, you're a fool to purchase one for any purpose. And pretty much all you would get out of MacBooks that you can't get from a MUCH CHEAPER laptop from HP, Dell, etc. is the multitouch trackpad (which won't work right in Windows) and MagSafe. So you'd be paying roughly $1000 USD for MagSafe.

The Mini is fine if you want something small. The iMac is fine if you include the price of the ridiculously high quality display.

There are multiple peple on this forum who've bought the laptops and installed Windows on them. I wonder why they did that...

You can easily find something with better specs for less that 1/2 the price. In fact, I've found hardware in almost exactly the same chassis for less than 1/2 the price, so aesthetics aren't even a good reason.

MrRefinement wrote:

The iMac is fine if you include the price of the ridiculously high quality display.

It's not ridiculously high-quality. Looking on NewEgg, this monitor with the exact same panel costs $850, so that gives me $1200 to spend on the desktop. I can do a lot better than an iMac for $1200. I could afford a Core i7, SSD, etc. Digging around, it looks like I can buy a comparable monitor for as little as $400.

As much as I'm loathe to agree with rtechie on something, I really can't see why somebody would buy a desktop Mac, certainly not at the moment.

Which is why I objected to his other statement,

Quote:

And pretty much all you would get out of MacBooks that you can't get from a MUCH CHEAPER laptop from HP, Dell, etc. is the multitouch trackpad (which won't work right in Windows) and MagSafe. So you'd be paying roughly $1000 USD for MagSafe.

You can easily find something with better specs for less that 1/2 the price. In fact, I've found hardware in almost exactly the same chassis for less than 1/2 the price, so aesthetics aren't even a good reason.

Link?

Quote:

MrRefinement wrote:

The iMac is fine if you include the price of the ridiculously high quality display.

It's not ridiculously high-quality. Looking on NewEgg, this monitor with the exact same panel costs $850, so that gives me $1200 to spend on the desktop. I can do a lot better than an iMac for $1200. I could afford a Core i7, SSD, etc. Digging around, it looks like I can buy a comparable monitor for as little as $400.

27" iMac's start at &1700, not $2000. Also, that Dell is comprable; the $400 one you, funnily, aren't bothering to link, is most likely not.

Can you find something that outperforms it right now? Probably. In that form factor even. It's due for a refresh.

El Capitano wrote:

As much as I'm loathe to agree with rtechie on something, I really can't see why somebody would buy a desktop Mac, certainly not at the moment.

They're overdue for a revision. I took his post to mean Apple desktops were a poor value, period, rather than a poor value now.

You can easily find something with better specs for less that 1/2 the price. In fact, I've found hardware in almost exactly the same chassis for less than 1/2 the price, so aesthetics aren't even a good reason.

Here is an example of an Mac Mini-style case. This one's actually a bit pricey, but it's the first thing I found. Found this on Newegg. With a pretty LCD screen.

Actually finding something pre-built that undercut the mini was a bit of a challenge since most mini-pcs I found were about half the price and had slower CPUs. This is about $450 and comparable. It looks like to get down to $350ish I'd have to build something.

It's worth noting that the Mac mini would have Thunderbolt and Firewire 800, but few users would care about those features. But if you did, the Mac mini is one of the few ways to get them.

MrRefinement wrote:

27" iMac's start at &1700, not $2000.

You need to spend $350 on AppleCare to get a warranty comparable to Dell, HP, etc. It's unusual to build your own all-in-ones so I'm assuming OEM pricing. iMacs are crazy expensive for what you get.

MrRefinement wrote:

I took his post to mean Apple desktops were a poor value, period

They are. The Mac Pro and iMacs are crazy overpriced, and the Mac Mini is somewhat overpriced. Apple laptops are pricey too, but not nearly as much. And I think the aesthetics argument is stronger for laptops (something you carry around) than for desktops (something you put on a shelf) which helps justify the cost of the Macs. A lot of the "bookpcs" I looked at had VESA mounts and you really were never supposed to look at them at all.

I'd extend this to the iPod Touch, which is now also crazy overpriced (compared to devices like a Nexus 7 or even the iPad).

When did I claim that at all? I'm not playing a spec-game, I'm refuting rtechie's claim that you can get a much cheaper laptop from HP, Dell, etc, when it's clearly impossible for that to be true.

Yes you are, you're picking the one feature that isn't widely available on other laptops (the high-resolution screen) and declaring that it's the only feature that matters at all. I assume you'll concede that Macbook Pros were total shit and that nobody should have ever bought one or should buy one now, right?

Before the Retina display, Mac fans used to claim that the touchpad, Thunderbolt, and MagSafe were the only features that mattered because those weren't widely available on Windows PCs.

When did I claim that at all? I'm not playing a spec-game, I'm refuting rtechie's claim that you can get a much cheaper laptop from HP, Dell, etc, when it's clearly impossible for that to be true.

Yes you are, you're picking the one feature that isn't widely available on other laptops (the high-resolution screen) and declaring that it's the only feature that matters at all. I assume you'll concede that Macbook Pros were total shit and that nobody should have ever bought one or should buy one now, right?

No, if you're going to argue, I'm going to hold your words against you. You said:

Quote:

And pretty much all you would get out of MacBooks that you can't get from a MUCH CHEAPER laptop from HP, Dell, etc. is the multitouch trackpad (which won't work right in Windows) and MagSafe. So you'd be paying roughly $1000 USD for MagSafe.

What you should have said to make your point correct:

Quote:

And pretty much all you would get out of MacBooks that you can't get from a MUCH CHEAPER laptop from HP, Dell, etc. is the multitouch trackpad (which won't work right in Windows), MagSafe, or a Retina display. So you'd be paying roughly $1000 USD for a Retina display.

Quote:

Before the Retina display, Mac fans used to claim that the touchpad, Thunderbolt, and MagSafe were the only features that mattered because those weren't widely available on Windows PCs.

Actually finding something pre-built that undercut the mini was a bit of a challenge since most mini-pcs I found were about half the price and had slower CPUs. This is about $450 and comparable. It looks like to get down to $350ish I'd have to build something.

It's worth noting that the Mac mini would have Thunderbolt and Firewire 800, but few users would care about those features. But if you did, the Mac mini is one of the few ways to get them.

So, with a processor rev (impending) the Mini is pretty easily comprable, assuming you limit yourself to the form factor.

Quote:

MrRefinement wrote:

27" iMac's start at &1700, not $2000.

You need to spend $350 on AppleCare to get a warranty comparable to Dell, HP, etc. It's unusual to build your own all-in-ones so I'm assuming OEM pricing. iMacs are crazy expensive for what you get.

That's a weasel. They both have a 1 year warranty. Dell's adds in-home support, although given that it's Dell, they probably welch on that regularly. Also, bravo on overquoting the cost of AppleCare.

Quote:

MrRefinement wrote:

I took his post to mean Apple desktops were a poor value, period

They are. The Mac Pro and iMacs are crazy overpriced, and the Mac Mini is somewhat overpriced. Apple laptops are pricey too, but not nearly as much. And I think the aesthetics argument is stronger for laptops (something you carry around) than for desktops (something you put on a shelf) which helps justify the cost of the Macs. A lot of the "bookpcs" I looked at had VESA mounts and you really were never supposed to look at them at all.

Take the AppleCare price back off and you're paying a premium for Apple's design chops; their build quality; and their customer service. The XPS all-in-one outspecs the iMac, but it also is due for a rev in the next month or so and will most likely easily acheive parity. Actually, depending on what they put in it, it could acheive price parity as well.

I'm not going to defend the Mac Pro. The only reason anyone is buying one is that they require an Apple solution with a warranty.

Quote:

I'd extend this to the iPod Touch, which is now also crazy overpriced (compared to devices like a Nexus 7 or even the iPad).

Macs are certainly price comparable. People value OSX, while Windows is something that you can find anywhere and everywhere. Notice they're popular with an affluent minority, just as you'd expect, since they run less software than the most ubiquitous Windows PCs.

Ipods are even easier to explain: they have the world's largest game library and connect to the world's most popular music store and fit in your pocket or are held easily by children for gaming.

What's your point, rtechie, that people value Apple's brand and OS and build quality around a $100 or more's worth? Yeah, they do, they're a premium label and they succeed at being more than a fashion label, they actually are different.

Thinkpads are also 'overpriced', with comparably better build quality, unique niche features and a quality brand image. Imagine that. Why not persecute Thinkpad zealots? Please, my work thinkpad weighs like 20 lbs and I'd love them to change their mind, I'm getting old and my back is killing me when I carry this thing. It's ridiculous and I think they charge by the pound.

So, with a processor rev (impending) the Mini is pretty easily comprable, assuming you limit yourself to the form factor.

Still slightly pricey, but reasonable. It's worth noting that if you go slightly bigger (cube) you could save at least $100 on the Windows box. It's my understanding the Mini uses a lot of the same components as the MBP which helps keep the cost down.

And you mention the form factor, which is the big problem with the mini. The form factor isn't very compelling vs a laptop. What users really want is a mini-desktop (like the Shuttle XPS) which Apple doesn't offer.

MrRefinement wrote:

That's a weasel. They both have a 1 year warranty. Dell's adds in-home support, although given that it's Dell, they probably welch on that regularly. Also, bravo on overquoting the cost of AppleCare.

It's not a weasel, you have to pay for a decent warranty from Apple unlike other vendors so you have to add that to the cost. And Dell has been pretty good about onsite repair from what I've seen, assuming you're not out in the boonies. Of course, if you're out in the boonies they'll send you a box, and you're probably pretty far from an Apple Store too. I had last looked at AppleCare for a MacBook Pro Retina, which is $350, and I assumed it was the same. My bad.

Apple laptops are really well made, IME. I still don't think it's cost-effective to buy them with the intent of putting Windows on them, especially as there are Windows laptops (HP Envy 15, Dell XPS 15z) that are extremely similar and cheaper, and would have better support

MrRefinement wrote:

Take the AppleCare price back off and you're paying a premium for Apple's design chops; their build quality; and their customer service.

Take the AppleCare off and there isn't much "customer service".

MrRefinement wrote:

The XPS all-in-one outspecs the iMac, but it also is due for a rev in the next month or so and will most likely easily acheive parity.

How is this not an argument against Apple? Since other vendors respec their desktop hardware far more often, unless you happen to buy a new iMac the week it comes out it's almost always going to lag behind other vendors. Assuming their desktops don't lag behind other vendors at launch, which is usually the case.

Not that this doesn't affect Windows too. Right now is the worst possible time to purchase a Windows laptop or all-in-one. With the touch-centric Windows 8 just around the corner it's really not a great idea to invest in something that will be completely obsolete in a week or 2.

There is also the fact that all-in-ones are a bad deal for the consumer, period. Your dollar goes a lot farther with a separate monitor and desktop. Separates make more sense in essentially every environment. There is no reason at all to buy an all-in-one without a touchscreen.

Quote:

I'd extend this to the iPod Touch, which is now also crazy overpriced (compared to devices like a Nexus 7 or even the iPad).

MrRefinement wrote:

It fits in your pocket.

Wow, that's totally worth an extra $100. Or I can buy a Samsung Galaxy Player for $130, less than half the price.

When did I claim that at all? I'm not playing a spec-game, I'm refuting rtechie's claim that you can get a much cheaper laptop from HP, Dell, etc, when it's clearly impossible for that to be true.

You can absolutely get a much cheaper laptop from HP, Dell, etc. For crying out loud are you really saying that you can't get a laptop for much less than $2200+? Of course you can. You are simply saying that you can't get one with a specific specification that you have decided is important.

Quote:

I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I'm arguing that $1000 gets you significantly more than MagSafe.

I don't think Thunderbolt is significant. But those aren't the only two things. My point was that TB is hardly a selling point for the vast majority of people.

And you mention the form factor, which is the big problem with the mini. The form factor isn't very compelling vs a laptop. What users really want is a mini-desktop (like the Shuttle XPS) which Apple doesn't offer.

Huh? Wait, are you saying the Mini is not a mini-desktop like the Shuttle? Sure...

Quote:

It's not a weasel, you have to pay for a decent warranty from Apple unlike other vendors so you have to add that to the cost. And Dell has been pretty good about onsite repair from what I've seen, assuming you're not out in the boonies. Of course, if you're out in the boonies they'll send you a box, and you're probably pretty far from an Apple Store too. I had last looked at AppleCare for a MacBook Pro Retina, which is $350, and I assumed it was the same. My bad.

So, they both have a year warranty. Why are we buying AppleCare to the equation? Specifically.

Quote:

Apple laptops are really well made, IME. I still don't think it's cost-effective to buy them with the intent of putting Windows on them, especially as there are Windows laptops (HP Envy 15, Dell XPS 15z) that are extremely similar and cheaper, and would have better support

Better support? Are we back on the warranty, or are you talking about something else?

Quote:

Take the AppleCare off and there isn't much "customer service".

What are you talking about? All Apple products are covered by a one year warranty. Are you claiming they won't honor it?

Quote:

How is this not an argument against Apple? Since other vendors respec their desktop hardware far more often, unless you happen to buy a new iMac the week it comes out it's almost always going to lag behind other vendors. Assuming their desktops don't lag behind other vendors at launch, which is usually the case.

A week is an exaggeration. Right now the iMacs have gone an abnormally long time without a revision. In the past they have been more regular. I personally would love it if Apple spec bumped more often. At least when either Intel or the GPU companies produce a major revision. That aspect of their philosophy annoys me, but I'm not their target customer either. To most people it just doesn't matter.

Quote:

Not that this doesn't affect Windows too. Right now is the worst possible time to purchase a Windows laptop or all-in-one. With the touch-centric Windows 8 just around the corner it's really not a great idea to invest in something that will be completely obsolete in a week or 2.

Touch on a desktop is a terrible idea.

Quote:

There is also the fact that all-in-ones are a bad deal for the consumer, period. Your dollar goes a lot farther with a separate monitor and desktop. Separates make more sense in essentially every environment. There is no reason at all to buy an all-in-one without a touchscreen.

Yeah sure, but they work great for people who are not technically inclined. They're pretty far towards the appliance end of the spectrum.

Quote:

Wow, that's totally worth an extra $100. Or I can buy a Samsung Galaxy Player for $130, less than half the price.

I was responding to your comparison with the Nexus 7 and the Mini, not the Galaxy Player. But if you want to shift the terms, yeah, the iPod Touch costs more. I'm not going to bother trying to figure out why. They sell a ton. People obviously perceive value in them. What are Samsung's numbers like on the Player?

Huh? Wait, are you saying the Mini is not a mini-desktop like the Shuttle? Sure...

The Mac Mini uses laptop components (memory, hard drives) which are more expensive and offers no expansion, unlike a Shuttle XPC (typo) that allows you to have add-on cards, more hard drives, etc. Apple fans have long wanted an expandable desktop other than the crazy expensive Mac Pro.

MrRefinement wrote:

So, they both have a year warranty. Why are we buying AppleCare to the equation? Specifically.

Because other vendors (last time I looked at this, HP, Dell, Sony, and Asus) offered 1 year of onsite support equivalent to AppleCare for free. Given that, it is unfair to not to add AppleCare to the cost of Macs when making comparisons to other vendors.

MrRefinement wrote:

Better support? Are we back on the warranty, or are you talking about something else?

In my experience, the "Genius Bar" doesn't really provide any support for Windows on Macs, nor is this really covered under AppleCare. If you bought a retail license you can get software support from Microsoft directly, but it can be pricey. But you don't really seem to be able to get support for hardware (drivers, etc.) at all. Admittedly, it's not really that much of a problem since you can download drivers from Intel, AMD, etc. but if you wanted "formal support" you really don't have it.

IOW, Apple provides poor support for Windows on Macs.

MrRefinement wrote:

Take the AppleCare off and there isn't much "customer service".

What are you talking about? All Apple products are covered by a one year warranty. Are you claiming they won't honor it?[/quote]Without AppleCare you don't get phone support, onsite, and other options available from other vendors. The same is true of Dell, HP, etc. except you get the first year for free. This chart shows how AppleCare extends phone support past 90 days and you also get onsite.

MrRefinement wrote:

Right now the iMacs have gone an abnormally long time without a revision. In the past they have been more regular. I personally would love it if Apple spec bumped more often. At least when either Intel or the GPU companies produce a major revision. That aspect of their philosophy annoys me, but I'm not their target customer either. To most people it just doesn't matter.

Clearly not being updated as often as other vendors is a real weakness of the iMac.

Let me make it absolutely crystalline clear that "popularity" doesn't matter one little bit. It's a canard you're bringing up to deflect attention from the technical weaknesses of Apple products. If you can't defend Apple products without whining about the "target consumer" and "most people" that's the same thing as conceding Apple products are technically inferior. Budweiser is not the best beer because it is the most popular.

You've already conceded the Mac Pro and iMac are technically inferior so the only remaining argument is about the Mac Mini.

MrRefinement wrote:

Touch on a desktop is a terrible idea.

One of the few decent uses for an all-in-one is as a wall-mounted presentation device. Touch would be very useful in that scenario. And touchscreen monitors are very expensive, so you might actually save a little bit of money by going with a touchscreen all-in-one.

I've sort of assumed that almost all all-in-ones (other than iMacs, because Apple has no regular desktops) are wall mounted. If you want a Windows desktop... buy a desktop.

I actually used Windows 8 on a touchscreen desktop monitor and the experience was not as problematic as a thought. The big problem is that I kept wanting to pull the monitor forward almost to the edge of the desk, which left no room for the keyboard. I guess a really slim keyboard or putting a wireless keyboard in your lap (that's what I did) works.

MrRefinement wrote:

Yeah sure, but they work great for people who are not technically inclined. They're pretty far towards the appliance end of the spectrum.

There is no FUNCTIONAL advantage to all-in-ones whatsoever. All you save is plugging in exactly two cables. It's ridiculous to assume someone that's supposed to be smart enough to operate a complex modern operating system like OS X or Windows 8 somehow can't manage to plug in two cables. The only advantage you get from all-in-ones is space-savings and given the availability of cheap 17" desktop replacement laptops, the space merit seems dubious. Now maybe the all-in-one could be more expandable, but that's actually pretty uncommon. And if you're thinking about the large screen, you could get a 27" monitor with a VESA-mount Mini-ITX PC that would be cheaper and more expandable than the all-in-one and only a little bit bigger.

MrRefinement wrote:

I was responding to your comparison with the Nexus 7 and the Mini, not the Galaxy Player. But if you want to shift the terms, yeah, the iPod Touch costs more. I'm not going to bother trying to figure out why. They sell a ton. People obviously perceive value in them. What are Samsung's numbers like on the Player?

You said that the main advantage of the iPod Touch over the Nexus 7 was that the Touch was pocketable, implying there were no comparable pocketable products. The only reason to bring up popularity is because you can't defent the iPod Touch on the technical merits. I'll assume by bringing it up you concede the iPod Touch is complete garbage.

The Mac Mini uses laptop components (memory, hard drives) which are more expensive and offers no expansion, unlike a Shuttle XPC (typo) that allows you to have add-on cards, more hard drives, etc. Apple fans have long wanted an expandable desktop other than the crazy expensive Mac Pro.

The Mac Mini has expandable memory and Thunderbolt is what Apple thinks you should use for upgrading. You can replace the hard drive if you want to, but you can't have more than one internally, no. The market for full-on expandable desktops is rapidly shrinking though, to the point where there's very little talk of a possible xMac these days.

Quote:

Because other vendors (last time I looked at this, HP, Dell, Sony, and Asus) offered 1 year of onsite support equivalent to AppleCare for free. Given that, it is unfair to not to add AppleCare to the cost of Macs when making comparisons to other vendors.

Well, I just checked and Dell do offer one year at-home warranty included in the price. That's pretty good, to be honest.

Quote:

There is no FUNCTIONAL advantage to all-in-ones whatsoever. All you save is plugging in exactly two cables. It's ridiculous to assume someone that's supposed to be smart enough to operate a complex modern operating system like OS X or Windows 8 somehow can't manage to plug in two cables. The only advantage you get from all-in-ones is space-savings and given the availability of cheap 17" desktop replacement laptops, the space merit seems dubious. Now maybe the all-in-one could be more expandable, but that's actually pretty uncommon. And if you're thinking about the large screen, you could get a 27" monitor with a VESA-mount Mini-ITX PC that would be cheaper and more expandable than the all-in-one and only a little bit bigger.

Space saving is pretty important to many people and never under-estimate the cables situation. It's also more than two cables. A desktop computer with monitor will have two power cords, the HDMI/VGA/whatever cord, the USB cord to connect the monitor's build-in features and you'll probably end up with speaker cords somewhere because very few monitors offer usable speakers. If you have pets, you know that the less cords you have, the better, especially ones at ground level!

-Your point about the Mini not being a desktop because it uses laptop parts is ludicrous.-I remain convinced your AppleCare addition to one, without adding the requirement of equal coverage for 3 years from the others is also ludicrous-Your expectation that Apple would provide support for a competitor's OS is equally retarded-I love that you translated target customer as "popularity". You missed my point entirely. But I'm gald you were crystalline [sic] clear about it.-You don't understand the appeal or the advantages of all-in-ones

Quote:

The big problem is that I kept wanting to pull the monitor forward almost to the edge of the desk

-That's why touch doesn't work on the desktop-You made a comparison between the Touch and two tablets as an example of why the pricing was out of whack. Maybe you should have made a sensible comparison in the first place? As for being complete garbage...didn't you get pissy about someone else exaggerating recently? Hypocrite. -Better design and works with the largest media and app store on the planet. It's popular because the price disadvantage is balanced by the whole availability of the iOS ecosystem. That's obviously compelling, because Apple still completely dominates the PMP market.

-Your point about the Mini not being a desktop because it uses laptop parts is ludicrous.-Your expectation that Apple would provide support for a competitor's OS is equally retarded-You don't understand the appeal or the advantages of all-in-ones-That's why touch doesn't work on the desktop-Better design and works with the largest media and app store on the planet. It's popular because the price disadvantage is balanced by the whole availability of the iOS ecosystem. That's obviously compelling, because Apple still completely dominates the PMP market.

Popularity is a canard.1) Laptop parts cost more and limit your expandability more than desktop parts. Do you dispute this? 2) You are the one that is arguing that the MacBook Air and Pro are better laptops to run Windows than any other laptops on the market. 3) The primary purpose of all-in-ones is to generate higher margins for vendors. Why don't you actually explain the merits of all-in-ones that I missed? 4) I pointed out I thought touchscreen all-in-ones made the most sense wall mounted. A wall is not a desk.5) What media does the iPod touch have that you can't get on Android?

No one ever said anything about popularity, but I guess you still don't get that that isn't target customer means.

1. Yes. Unless you want to clarify that general state to something that isn't so obviously false.2. All I am doing is responding to a bunch of bullshit you posted. I haven't made that statement.3. Wrong, and I don't feel the need to do your research for you. Some of them should be faily obvious.4. Ah, you were agreeing with me then. Was hard to tell.5. I'm not going to bother with a list. This has been discussed to death.

1. Seriously? Can you name ANY laptop component that is cheaper and more widely available than desktop components? The only thing I can think of is PCI Express Wifi and WWAN cards and even that's really marginal. Hard drives, memory, DVD drives, expansion cards, and literally every other component is cheaper, usually half the cost or less, and more widely available. And laptop hardware also has inferior performance: low-voltage CPUs, notebook video cards, slower hard drives, etc.

2. You didn't mean to say you should install Windows on Macs with this statement?"There are multiple peple on this forum who've bought the laptops and installed Windows on them. I wonder why they did that... "I realize this is weasel-worded ("people say"). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean this.

3. The topic is why YOU think people should buy all-in-ones. How am I supposed to "research" that without asking you? Obviously, *I* don't think all-in-ones make sense in most cases. What makes you think that conclusion isn't based on research? I'm almost certain I've installed more all-in-one systems than you have. You don't even seem to know what I'm talking about in terms of VESA mount MiniITX systems, so maybe you shoudl do some research on that.

5. Aside from exclusive music releases on iTunes, I'm not sure what you're missing if you don't use iTunes. I don't use iTunes, and I can't think of anything I've wanted that wasn't available elsewhere.

is wrong. How does having a laptop part limit my expandibility in a Mini? As for cost of the parts, how the fuck does that matter? You're comparing the value of a mini to a PC, and worrying about how much Apple pays for components? That makes no sense.

2. How many people on this forum do you think 1) buy anything but the OEM version, and 2) are stupid enough to call Apple for Windows software support?

Please, my work thinkpad weighs like 20 lbs and I'd love them to change their mind, I'm getting old and my back is killing me when I carry this thing. It's ridiculous and I think they charge by the pound.

Current generation Thinkpads are lighter than MacBook Pros and the X1 Carbon weighs the same as the 13" MacBook Air but has a 14" screen.

1. I think you misunderstood what I was saying and/or you don't know anything about desktop computers. Having laptop parts means you get no PCI or PCI Express slots, laptops use Mini PCI Express and usually only have one slot. The Mini has no Mini PCI Express slot so there is no "card expansion" at all.

When I was talking about components, I was talking about the end-user buying aftermarket components to add to the computer. PCI Express cards normally cost less that Mini PCI Express cards, desktop memory is cheaper than laptop memory, 3.5" drives are cheaper than 2.5" drives, etc.

2. I don't know what you're trying to say. You get no support from Microsoft if you install an OEM version of Windows. And, again, I'm not the one making the claim that MacBooks are the best laptops to run Windows, you are.

3. You said that iMacs have high-quality displays that justify the price. The statement "iMacs are not a ripoff" isn't even remotely like "You should purchase an all-in-one over a standard desktop because...". You're made no specific argument in favor of all-in-ones whatsoever. Why should I buy an XPS One over an XPS desktop, for example?

1. No, having a laptop motherboard means you get no pci slots. I didn't misunderstand anything, you're making overly general statements that are blatantly obviously wrong. As for expansion, hello, obvious. no one buying a Mini is looking to put pci cards into them. Exandability is a canard.

2. No one on this forum (the people we're talking about) buys full retail Windows. Nor am I making the claim you keep ascribing to me. Why should I care that Macs get poor Windows support when none of the people we're talking about are going to be getting Windows support?

3. I'm comparing like to like. Why would I compare an iMac to a workstation?

I didn't misunderstand anything, you're making overly general statements that are blatantly obviously wrong.

No, you clearly misunderstood my post.

1. Expandability is certainly not a canard. It is not "overly general" to say that Macs, especially desktop Macs, have lousy expansion. The Mini has lousy expansion for a mini-PC, there are many cheaper systems as small or smaller with better expansion. The iMac has poor expansion, even for an all-in-one. And the Mac Pro is just generally terrible. Since this is a substantial feature for every other vendor, it's ridiculous to assert that users don't care. If users don't care, why aren't all desktops non-expandable like Minis? You might remember that all-in-ones were initially popular after the introduction of the iMac, but quickly faded from the market and are now mostly a niche. Do you know why that is?

And what about my point that laptop components are inferior? CPUs are slower and more expensive, memory is more expensive, hard drives are slower and more expensive. These facts affect the quality of of the Mini vs. other miniPCs even without taking expansion into account because the Mini is BUILT using slower parts.

Let me try to simplify the above: The Mac Mini is inferior to other mini PCs because it uses slower parts and you can't add cards or drives.

If, for some reason, you don't believe these mini PCs with expansion and desktop components exist I can post links. Most of them will be bigger than the Mini due to needing more space for CPU cooling.

2. I still maintain that it is foolish to purchase a brand new MacBook with the intention of wiping OS X and replacing it with Windows for the many reasons mentioned. Only you are defending the idea that it is not foolish. There is also the legal issue regarding transferring licenses.

But if you want to run with "support doesn't matter", I'll go with that. You've now invalidated any possible reason to purchase a Mac desktop. The hardware is overpriced, by any measure. Even if you wanted the Mac products you can purchase virtually identical knockoff products for less. Legal issues are irrelevant. If you have no problem pirating Windows you should have no problem pirating OS X.

3. I asked you to compare the XPS One with the equivalent XPS desktop (XPS desktops are not workstations, that's the Precision line) to help you illustrate the benefits of all-in-ones that you claim exist but stubbornly refuse to state. You're not stating the benefits of all-in-ones because they're aren't any. The iMac is complete shit because it's an all-in-one. The XPS One is also shit. If you care to argue this point, do so. So far, you've said nothing substantive.

No one on this forum (the people we're talking about) buys full retail Windows.

That's quite the blanket statement. I own several retail copied of Windows which I purchased at retail. You really shouldn't project your own habits onto others; all it does is display your ignorance.

Right. You buy several copies of full retail Windows to run them on the several MacBook Pros you own. Cause, you know, that's what we're talking about. People who buy MBPs and run Windows on them.

You're a system builder, right?

As for rtechie:Expandability is a canard because my original statement was contingent on the Mini's form factor. That's the contstaint that makes it of equivalent value. Obviously if the case isn't desirable a larger computer makes sense and costs less. PS form factor matters in the consumer world. You might think about that in relation to point 3...

Quote:

2. I still maintain that it is foolish to purchase a brand new MacBook with the intention of wiping OS X and replacing it with Windows for the many reasons mentioned. Only you are defending the idea that it is not foolish. There is also the legal issue regarding transferring licenses.

Who said anything about wiping OS X? You keep adding stuff to the discussion that has occured only in your head.

3. I'm not going to bother explaining to you the various fucking obvious reasons an all in one can be useful, whether an iMac or someone else's.

No one on this forum (the people we're talking about) buys full retail Windows.

That's quite the blanket statement. I own several retail copied of Windows which I purchased at retail. You really shouldn't project your own habits onto others; all it does is display your ignorance.

Right. You buy several copies of full retail Windows to run them on the several MacBook Pros you own. Cause, you know, that's what we're talking about. People who buy MBPs and run Windows on them.

You're a system builder, right?

Actually, no, I am not a system builder. I am a technology consultant. I rarely build a computer for anyone other than myself. What the hell would that have to do with anything anyway, though?

One of my retail copies is running on my Mac Mini, yes, so I have in fact done basically what you're talking about with one of them. I have several clients who have retail copies running on their Macbooks.

Because the only reason I can possibly think to have multiple retail copies running is to pass them along. Why are you buying retail anyway? I'm surprised anyone on this forum (the pool of people I am talking about; as compared to the world at large) would have a use for support.

Happy to be corrected. Not sure why you're being so aggressive about it.

Because the only reason I can possibly think to have multiple retail copies running is to pass them along. Why are you buying retail anyway? I'm surprised anyone on this forum (the pool of people I am talking about; as compared to the world at large) would have a use for support.

Because I have more than one computer on which I am using Windows. I buy retail because I don't want to buy a new license when transferring to another system later. I tend to migrate less now than I used to but, really, when you have a license for several years the cost isn't that much. Shoot, my retail copies of XP probably cost me $10 a year, though that's clearly an exception. The copies I have of Win7 weren't that much either when you figure I have had them for several years now.

Quote:

Happy to be corrected. Not sure why you're being so aggressive about it.

Aggressive? Hardly. You made a blanket statement based on your own thought processes then tried to justify it as somehow I am reselling things. you show a distinct lack of knowledge of how the system really works. System builders buy OEM copies which are sold pre-installed on a computer. Retail licenses held for resale would be for a retailer such as Staples, not a system builder.

Using blanket statements is harmful to your point, especially when you tar every Arsian with the same brush. Just because you choose to pirate software or violate the terms of your license agreement, whichever you're doing, doesn't mean everyone does the same thing.

Yes, I did. You could have just said, I do, because I don't like dealing with rebuying. Calling someone ignorant is not exactlty building towards constructive conversation.

I could have said any number of things. The fact is that you ignorantly posted a blanket statement. You didn't qualify it as "those installing on a Mac, either. Granted this is a Mac thread but that doesn't change your post.

Quote:

the only reason I can possibly think to have multiple retail copies running is to pass them along.

This again demonstrates your ignorance of the realities of many others' use of computers. Yours is far fomr the only use case. In fact, by definition your use case (installing Windows on a Mac) is an overwhelming minority of users in general and yet you made the blanket statement that "No one on this forum (the people we're talking about) buys full retail Windows."

Quote:

I'm surprised anyone on this forum (the pool of people I am talking about; as compared to the world at large) would have a use for support.

Support is not the only reason to buy retail, though. Transferability (it's a word now) of the license is. You completely neglected to mentiuon that.

Quote:

And pirate?! I was talking about using the OEM version.

Keep in mind I also write posts so they apply to lurkers (see my title over there?) so take it for what it was; a shotgun approach since you hadn't clarified. Hell, using an OEM version on more than one Mac over time is effectively pirating anyhow as far as MSFT is concerned since that version is tied, legally, to the first hardware it was installed on. That doesn't even count the violation of the initial System Builder agreement which MSFT finally changed somewhat.

Frankly, it's hilarious to me that so many Mac users pay through the nose for their hardware then cheap out on things like Windows for a VM. If you need it then pay for it. The piracy angle is veering OT, though, and to be fair you did buy at least an OEM version so that's better than many.

Still, if you're making an argument you probably ought to put in all your clarifications in that argument. Otherwise, you look like you're backpedaling when someone calls you on it.

Ok--your situation of moving windows around to differnet computers is a VERY niche case, so you are fault for not clarifying on this. For such an edge case, the onus is on you to clarify not Mr. Refinement to figure out you are doing something so incredibly rare.

Plus you are coming off looking poorly (take if from a guy who knows. )

The context of the discussion is about installing Windows on MacBookPros. If you can't be bothered to read the preceding, perhaps leading off with name-calling is not wise?

Quote:

This again demonstrates your ignorance of the realities of many others' use of computers. Yours is far fomr the only use case. In fact, by definition your use case (installing Windows on a Mac) is an overwhelming minority of users in general and yet you made the blanket statement that "No one on this forum (the people we're talking about) buys full retail Windows."

More constructive posting. You're obviously here to help. I notice that while you're name-calling again, this sentence is fairly lacking in actual content.

Quote:

Support is not the only reason to buy retail, though. Transferability (it's a word now) of the license is. You completely neglected to mentiuon that.

While true, I'd be surprised if people were moving those retail copies off laptops onto other machines. Must be imy ignorance acting up again.

Quote:

Keep in mind I also write posts so they apply to lurkers (see my title over there?) so take it for what it was; a shotgun approach since you hadn't clarified.

How big of you.

Quote:

Hell, using an OEM version on more than one Mac over time is effectively pirating anyhow as far as MSFT is concerned since that version is tied, legally, to the first hardware it was installed on.

No one said anything about reinstalling anything. Why are you trying to paint me as a pirate?

Quote:

Frankly, it's hilarious to me that so many Mac users pay through the nose for their hardware then cheap out on things like Windows for a VM. If you need it then pay for it. The piracy angle is veering OT, though, and to be fair you did buy at least an OEM version so that's better than many.

Support and the possibility that someone would want to transfer before the next version of Windows comes out is not worth it for some of us. Do you think Microsoft is unaware of how the OEM versions are being used? Also, seriously, fuck off with the piracy angle. No one ever suggested pirating software.

Quote:

Still, if you're making an argument you probably ought to put in all your clarifications in that argument. Otherwise, you look like you're backpedaling when someone calls you on it.

Context is a wonderful thing. Perhaps read more of the thread before going off next time. If nothing else it will spare you the apparent need to be a dick for the next few posts.